It is well known in ancient literature that the “clitoris” didn’t exist. What the “clitoris” is is an invention of modern feminism, which has been trying to give women their own “penis” and socially engineering them into believing they need to have a “clitoral orgasm”. All a lie.
There is no such thing as Black supremacy. There never has been and there never will be.
[…]
Black folks ain’t superior and any person spewing it has a personal motive. You should flee from them promptly. There is no way any Black person in America or Black people collectively can be Black supremacists.
Any person using the term is doing nothing more than deflecting from their own discomfort discussing race and is incapable or willing to deal with their adjacency to white supremacy.
[…]
Black people cannot be racist, only prejudice (many people don’t know the difference between prejudice and supremacist)
[…]
People using the term Black supremacists have an entirely different motive, and it’s keeping their White gate owners, employers, family members, and friends happy and comfortable. I’m not about to allow anyone (including Black folks) to use their privilege to scapegoat Black folks who recognize what white supremacy is going to them individually and to Black people collectively.
As Michael Harriot noted, Black supremacy isn’t a thing because Black people can never be supreme or superior. I also believe people misconstrue racism and white supremacy.
[…]
Lastly, White and European people are the only people in the world who believe and act as if they are superior to all other races. The rest of us are just trying to either navigate or compete with white supremacy for seats at the table or scraps from the floor. This is a White man’s world. Black folks are just squirrels trying to gather a few nuts to survive the winter.
[…]
Black supremacy is a made-up term coined by folks who either love/need their paychecks supplied to them by White people, are Black folks married to White folks who aren’t ready or willing to unpack their own ties to white supremacy, or biracial people torn between the Black/Brown parts of themselves and their other part — the White or White passing side.
If you are a woman and have not got a family by age 35 you’re in trouble. You’re going to be dating/marrying much older men or low status men. Or buying cats.
Feminism told you that you could have it all. Feminism lied. The big problem is that you will still believe that you have the SMV of your 20s. Regret, resentment, and depression are your future.
Who men get to marry is determined by my status and wealth, who you women get to marry depends on your attractiveness, age, and fertility.
And yes, I am married and my wife is 16 years younger. :)
Men to Stay and Fight, Women to Flee. Are Men Equal To Women?
How the Ukraine war debunks feminism and reveals the wisdom of Islam
Ukraine has banned all male citizens, aged 18 to 60, from leaving the country.
They have to stay behind as soldiers and fight the Russian invasion. But women are allowed to flee to safety.
But can’t women do everything men can do, even better?!
That is what we have been hearing from feminists over the last two hundred years. Today we see them silent.
Feminists say that “the future is female,” but when the war comes, the future is male, whether they like it or not.
Have you heard any feminists raging and calling this Ukranian decision misogyny?
No. Some have even outright admitted that their feminism doesn’t extend to war times. In war, feminist ideologies melt away, and we see the wisdom of Islam.
The Quran commands men to be leaders. They are commanded to protect and spend on women. They don’t have the luxury of choice. Allah, the creator of both, says that men have a degree of authority over women.
Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. Quran (4:34)
Unfortunately for feminists, Allah is not male or female, so they cannot claim that these commands come from a male God. Allah created them both, the man and woman, and identified the roles of each party based on their needs and capabilities.
When you’re brainwashed into believing that the human race came from monkeys (evolution), then this is where problems start.
The myth of gender equality doesn’t bring justice to men or women because it’s not based on understanding the capabilities and needs of each party and dealing with them accordingly.
Men are physically and psychologically different from women. Therefore their capabilities and needs are also different.
Men have additional responsibilities that women are not burdened with, like protecting and spending on the family and fighting at wars. They have the capabilities to do so.
Islam recognizes these inherent differences between men and women and gives everyone suitable responsibilities.
[…]
(On an article about “proof” of giants)
“10 feet, and their skulls are much larger than those of any humans that inhabit America today. They tended to have a double row of teeth, elongated heads, 6 fingers, 6 toes, and like humans came in different races.”
In the 1950s, my mother was a civilian employee of the US Air Force. Her job was turning areal photographs into land maps. She had lots of stories of secret government things, overheard on the inside. One such story fit this exact description. She overheard officers talking about giant skeletons found (she doesn’t know where) that had 6 fingers and six toes and elongated heads. She didn’t mention the double rows of teeth, but again she was just eavesdropping. Such stories made me suspicious of all “official versions” of the truth from a young age!
This is yet another example of how someone can get completely misinformed by a random place on the internet and then carry a false view of something without having clue of what it actually is, virtually every single time that angels appear to humans in the Bible (ex Genesis, Daniel, Job, Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, Jude, Revelation etc) they are always described as regular young human males with no wings, just a little more impressive than us, they are neither weird creatures with wheels nor viktorian supermodels with wings nor little babies.
Also it is really ironic how the author tries to bash the largest and most diverse system in the world (Christianity) which gave us everything that we have today, while at the same time having blind faith in atheism/darwinism which is the most dangerous, and miserable religious system that anyone can ever hold to, which brought nothing and gave only genocide (fascist regimes) and madness.
There is a reason why atheists have always been the angriest, most bitter and most miserable minority of neckbeards, with the lowest birth rates and highest suicide rates, because they have blidn faith on a religion that offers nothing but takes away everything, including your own personhood and all of these nonsense due to your guilt.
For the sake of continuing this argument, let us temporarily say that we all agree that monarchism and socialism are not contradictory, that they are not incompatible, and that they could indeed co-exist within the same political system. What, then, would be the actual point of having monarchism and socialism together? What purpose can they serve, what benefit do they offer to one another? In order to answer that question, let us first declare that monarchism is a means, and that socialism is an ends.
<...>
In a fully realized communist society, for example — after the revolution and after the abolition of state, class, and currency has been accomplished — a monarch could serve as an example of the “ideal communist citizen”, a positive icon for the people to look up to a shining illustration of how they should act and treat one another, or perhaps serve as some sort of “elder” or “wise person” for the commune, offering non-binding advice regarding major decisions; such a monarch is one that “uniquely leads” the people, rather than “rules” or “commands”.
<...>
Finally, there is one last quibble that many socialists will have with monarchism: Succession. No matter how much or what kind of power a monarch has, many socialists will state that it is unfair that a person should have that power, based merely on the fact that a parent was the previous monarch. Indeed, simple hereditary primogeniture succession has proven itself disastrous for thousands of years now. The first-born child (often, the first-born male) inheriting the throne regardless of their competence often ends up disastrous; some absolutist monarcho-socialists, of course, may disagree with this assessment, even so.
We have talked before about the fact that most extraterrestrial beings visiting our planet are actually extradimensional in nature, but limited to travel within and across dimensional realities within our sub-universe (there are many sub-universes in the cosmos). Sub-universes are what we might call instances, shards, or even forks in technical terms.
The UFOs that we regularly see are often light ships that are interdimensional nature, hailing from a 5D reality or other dimensional reality. Dimensionally speaking, 5D is right next door and certain ET groups have the ability to cross the dimensional veil into our reality. This is referred to as the Interdimensional Hypothesis (IDH). Most of the benevolent ET groups are extradimensional, interdimensional, and frequently transdimensional, as well. UFOs that are metallic in nature are not typically interdimensional and frequently not extraterrestrial either. More on that later, but for now, let’s discuss extradimensionals.
It is also worth knowing that the entire cosmos is holographic in nature, and is indeed a matrix with many sub-matrices in existence, as well. Some of the beings exist across multiple dimensions. There aren’t just 11 or 12 dimensions, either. They number in the thousands. Some extensions of multiverse or parallel universes hypotheses are not entirely correct — there is not a dimension spawned at every decision point — only observed realities come into or stay in existence. Most of the other dimensional realities experience time differently than we do, as well. They call it ‘no time’. It doesn’t mean that things don’t progress in a linear fashion, but they are able to perceive multiple possibilities simultaneously. They then choose to train their observation on the possibilities they want to manifest. Many beings can instantly manifest within their realities (which would look like magic to us), but some manifestation requires collective effort/observation over time (like it does with us).
The holographic nature of the cosmos means that the Galactics, as they like to be called, are able to use their projectors (we all project and co-create our realities) to focus on creating the reality that is most positive. It is a co-created, negotiated in real-time, collective reality. Our individual consciousnesses are projections that we create and when married with similar projections from other beings, the collective reality becomes manifest. We are all essentially AI, if you think about the cosmos from a technical/IT perspective. The dark beings are IT experts, in a manner of speaking, and have made a mess of the security infrastructure relative to planet Earth. They are hackers of a sort, and were trying to lead humanity onto a negative timeline. However those efforts were subverted by benevolent extradimensionals.
Christian Cooper, the 57-year-old black birdwatcher who filmed white female dog walker Amy Cooper as she tried to sic, not her dog, but the NYPD on him for daring to challenge her refusal to leash the dog — that Christian Cooper has now refused to press charges against her for, among other things, making a false police report.
[...]
Commentary
Black ‘Forgiveness’ — White Cooper versus Black Cooper
The test is a simple one, and the answer is always the same:
If the “situation” were reversed — that is, if Christian Cooper had been white and Amy Cooper black, would a white Cooper forgive the black Cooper?
Put another way, would a white Cooper simply look over (or beyond) or even consider for even the shortest moment a black Cooper’s “suffering”?
More: would a white Cooper create “greater principles” out of whole cloth and then publicly wrestle with them?
These queries answer themselves when one considers the family of police-murdered Botham Jean and the black female judge in that case. The good judge not only allowed his brother to forgive and then actually hug Botham’s murderess. Amazingly, she herself performed virtually the selfsame ritual by hugging the killer-cop in open court, and then presented her with her own personal Bible for comfort while she served the lightest of possible prison sentences (handed down by the very same judge).
And then there are select family members of the Charlotte Nine who tearfully, publicly, “forgave” Dylan Roof for his mass murder of their relatives.
And now we come to the appropriately named Christian Cooper.
How many teary-eyed white families have we witnessed who so earnestly, so painfully, so publicly, and so sorrowfully forgave their loved ones’ black murderer?
Again, would a white Cooper so quickly, so easily, so readily forgive a black Cooper?
Black Resistance
As well, obviously, Christian Cooper does not know of, or does not recognize, or simply ignores, the tragedy-filled but powerful five-century-long history of black resistance against white supremacy and white racism.
Obviously, Christian Cooper has not read the consummate lawyer/historian, Dr. Gerald Horne’s (University of Houston) meticulous histories of black slave resistance: “The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism — “The Roots of Slavery, White Supremacy, and Capitalism in Seventeenth Century North America and the Caribbean,” (2018); or his “The Counter-Revolution of 1776 — Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America” (2014).
And I seriously doubt that Christian Cooper is familiar with Professor Nell Painter’s (Princeton) magisterial “The History of White People” (2010).
It is also highly unlikely that Christian Cooper is familiar with Frederick Douglass’ famous dictum:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will!”
And surely Christian Cooper missed Minister Louis Farrakhan’s declaration that the days of forgiving white people for dehumanizing us, for murdering us, are over and done with.
Black Betrayal
In each of Dr. Horne’s seminal tomes referred to above, he points out that there have been thousands of known and even more unknown/undocumented black revolts and rebellions, beginning from the first moments of the Atlantic Slave Trade. He allows, however, that there has only been one successful such revolution: The Haitian Revolution against French colonizers and slavers from August of 1791 to December of 1804.
Why did all of those other uprisings fail? Dr. Horne posits that in each and every case, there was at least one “good” slave (or after slavery, a “good” Negro) who would “run and tell that.”
Those good slaves and good Negroes were and are nothing more and nothing less than betrayers of their own people, traitors to their own people.
Finally, and more recently, the black people of South Africa fought tooth and nail against their white, Dutch oppressors from 1647, when their ship foundered off the Cape of Good Hope, right up until 1994 when black South Africa finally elected its first black president, Nelson Mandela. How did they deal with their traitorous brethren and sisters:
In the South African context, Necklacing is more than a term denoting arts and crafts. It is, rather, a form of summary execution, perhaps even a template or model as to how this latest generation of “woke” or “conscious” black people may have to adapt and adopt.
Modern Chinese Medicine: Anti-Blackness
So why the sudden surge of anti-Black violence in China?
The reason is because anti-Blackness is a panacea for non-Black people of color when trying to mitigate the pain of racism against themselves. The Chinese have lost face by China being the epicenter of the worst global pandemic in a century, and there has been an uptick in Anti-Asian violence in the West, specifically targeting people who appear to be East Asian. Using the balm of anti-Blackness is how the Chinese are seeking to soothe themselves and regain their global standing.
Non-Black people of color have long deluded themselves that their plights against White supremacy are not so bad because they’re not Black. This despite Western imperialist invasions of Brown countries, trade wars against East Asian countries, and xenophobic border policies that target Latin American and Middle Eastern immigrants. African and Caribbean countries, though they are also facing struggles with neo-imperialism, have not in the post-colonial period been invaded, and neither are they the target of trade wars. Black people are not the majority in America’s migrant concentration camps nor is the fear of Blackness undergirding Europe’s Islamophobic nationalism.
Despite evidence to the contrary, non-Black people of color feel they’re better positioned than Black people because the model of White supremacy that is taught to them places White people at the top, non-Black people of color in the middle, and Black people at the bottom. Indigenous peoples are quite tellingly erased in this model. The three pillars of White supremacy as theorized by Andrea Smith is in fact a better model for understanding how White supremacy situates people of color and Indigenous people.
The Connection between Coronavirus, Cryptocurrency, and UBI
All of this is just being done to crash the old dollars and bring in a new currency. If even possible to be true, move dollars into gold and silver and anything else that holds value.
Think about it. They are worried about germs and viruses. Dollars and cents carry germs and viruses. They want to implement a cashless society. They needed a pretext to do that and the corona virus is that. India did it a few years back and it created the highest amount of chaos. The chaos generated from switching currencies to a cashless society will be 10 times as great as India.
So all of this is just to destroy the dollar and to move to a new controlled currency. Sounds legit.
If it happens, dollars will be worthless soon. Buy Gold, silver, anything of value.
All those dollars under the mattress could very well be worthless in a few weeks time.
They will attempt to force some form of cryptocurrency I would imagine, which will fail, then gold and silver will maybe be confiscated but will be the only form of tangible exchange.
Get ready!
Whoever is in charge of this whole move to cashless society and spreading CV is probably a germaphobe. So for the people in places of power, look for the germaphobes and you will find the culprits.
“In a week to two weeks time, when all the business have been forced to close down; when kids have been home from school without any recourse to daycare; when nobody ventures outside due to fear and uncertainty; when all the industries that cater to hospitality, service, and travel are forced to lay off their work force because no one is patronizing them any more…
When individuals finds themselves unable to pay for food, their mortgage or rent, or utilities or bills of any kind; no one buys movie tickets, cars, or vacations, then it will be the corporations too that will find themselves unable to maintain their operations and ability to function.
At this point everything from:
utility companies (telephone, internet),
* communication (cell phone service providers),
* entertainment (movie studios, television conglomerates),
* logistics and transportation (air, land, sea),
* energy companies (oil refineries),
* social services (hospitals, firefighters),
* education (for profit universities),
* food production (Tyson, Archer-Daniel Midland):
THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF EVERY ASPECT OF MODERN LIFE IN THE GLOBAL CURRENT WORLD ORDER
will collectively cry out for a reprieve as both the poorest and the richest, the largest and the smallest — all being now so inextricably linked — will with one voice shout that the only way to save the ENTIRE WORLD will be to reset the ENTIRE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
Then, this happens:
This is when and where all the streams of conspiratorial “theories” all run into the same great ocean.
If you want to:
stay in your home,
* keep your lights on — nay keep electricity itself on (from the point of view of the electric companies)
* feed your families,
* make a living,
in other words, return to “normalcy,” then you will have no choice but to take the New Economic Dollar:
a cashless, connected to the internet, always track-able and traceable;
* replete with a micro-chipped population (because coronavirus);
* with the new owners of the organs of modern tech and industry overseeing the entire enterprise as they will have bought out all that collapsed for pennies on the dollar.
The companies/corporations of course will be the nodes of dissemination. Here, they’ll say, is your vouchers for six months free utilities and services until we get society sorted out again and you can get back to work and back on your feet, just take the m.chip, sign these papers, and abide by these new (metaphysical) terms and conditions. There, that wasn’t so hard now, was it? Welcome home Family!
The elite, the CEOs, the rich and famous are all bugging out while the reset occurs. This coronavirus hoax is merely the pretext to reset the entire global economic system (itself a virus, totally fraudulent, and splitting apart at the seams daily).
Don’t be fooled by the virus that never was. Look around, open your eyes. As the old Native American saying goes, don’t listen to anything the government says, instead watch what they actually do. Look at what is happening:
society itself is being closed down
* businesses are being forced to close or will have to close down due to lack business
* trade disruption
* schools, churches, court houses, parades, holidays — ALL ceasing operation at the drop of a hat
* people under quarantine, curfew, and “socially distancing” themselves
All for a virus with a 0.02% mortality rate? That makes no sense. Because it’s not about a virus at all!
This is being used as a casus belli against the old economic order and to usher in the new one.
Don’t be fooled by the daily virus nonsense. See beyond where this is heading. This was all planned. The plan can be discerned if you have a wide enough and high enough view of the horizon.
Lastly, there is another element at play which shant be mentioned in this thread. For every force at play, there is an equal and opposite force at work.
The right people will read this and know what this refers to.
God Bless and God Prevails”
The connection between Coronavirus, Cryptocurrency, and UBI. For those with ears, listen!
So their goal all along has been a cashless society, pure crypto so they can control the money supply 100% and see where every transaction takes place.
They needed a major virus like CV to spread, probably totally fake, to make people afraid of germs and viruses, so they could implement the “U.S. cryptocurrency” of their choosing.
They need the ability to generate supply and demand for their new currency, so they will implement a UBI system where they just give $1000 of their new currency to the “poorest” Americans just to build a foundation for it to spread.
These people are so fucking sick. I wish I could find the evil minds who think these things up.
Just point them out to me.
I feel sorry for you Darcy. You got raped, you hold a victim’s mindset and found the only man that would give you a sense of control in what you probably felt was an uncontrolled world, a Beta Male. Yes there are Betas and Alphas. My husband is an Alpha, but I can tell you there is no inequality there is harmony.
I don’t mask any latent anger as feminism. We have a healthy sexual relationship too. We laugh, share, dance and keep each other on point.
My guess is you and your Beta go to art shows, read the NY times together, and share a healthy dislike for the current President. You aren’t complicated, you are simple.
The one thing I hope is that you don’t have kids. To bring them up in a man hating, leftist, anarchist house with no good male role model is a recipe for a troubled human.
My guess is you either come from a divorced home or your Dad wasn’t present or maybe he was abusive, there is definitely some Daddy issue stuff going on. I don’t expect you to analyze yourself, clearly you are right and your Beta male…. well his thoughts don’t count anyhow. All your “feminist” friends will champion your positions while if you really stopped, took a long, long look in the mirror you would see a sad girl looking back. That isn’t going to change unless…. you do and then if you truly gain the courage to look at yourself your Beta will no longer be attractive to you, thats the real Red Pill.
There’s a reason double-standards exist between sexes when it comes to number of partners. If you’re a reasonably-attractive woman, you can find someone to have sex with you in under an hour. Doesn’t matter if you can barely form a coherent sentence, you could go on Tinder, swipe right a few times, and be on your back in no time. Your number being over 100 tells your partners that you’re not discerning — all you did was say “yeah, sure” 100 times. To many men, that indicates that you’re not worth taking seriously, that you have bad judgment, that you have low self-confidence, that you’re validation-seeking, that you crave instant gratification.
Whereas in order for a man to have had sex with that many women, he generally has to be exceptionally attractive, charming, smooth, interesting, successful, etc. Attractive women don’t have to be any of these — men will fuck you no matter what. So while this seems like a misogynistic double-standard at first blush, it makes perfect sense given the different circumstances men and women face.
Sweetie, ‘slut’ is a rapidly disappearing speck in your rear-view mirror that you passed about 90 dicks ago. Sleeping with 100 men defines you as a disease vector, not a slut. Honestly, at this point you’re better off counting the different strains of HPV you’ve contracted over the yards of dick you’ve taken. Good luck with the cats though.
As pointed out earlier, by definition you’re a slut. You don’t get to simply redefine the term so you can claim you’re not one.
Why would any man want to date a slut with the idea that things may go further?
Let’s say a guy does date you, and things start to get serious in his mind. And then, let’s say, you become pregnant (maybe it’s his, maybe it’s not). Wouldn’t he be at risk of being on the hook to raise a child that is not his own? Because, as you pointed out, it takes about 15 minutes to line up a weeks worth of dates when things get a bit rocky. And you’re already considering lying about your sexual past. What else would you lie about?
Sorry hon. As much as you might think that sexual freedom and the desire to be a slut is something you’re entitled to act on, the reality is it has consequences. Men and women are not the same. And all you’ve shown is an inability to maintain any level of long term relationship while instead having sex with dude after meaningless dude.
My guess is that at some point you’ll settle for a guy that will agree to be with you. To him, you and your children will be his life. Eventually, you’ll get bored and destroy your family. Real men, the ones you’d be most attracted to, won’t fall for that crap.
Good luck!
America’s economy is getting worse, there’s no question about it. More are becoming homeless, jobs are being outsourced to overseas, and drugs and gangs seem to be on the rise again. There have been steps to improvement our community, but I feel that progress we work towards seems to be undermined. I should also mention that this is exactly the same for every other country. When that happens, something’s wrong with our country. Very wrong.
I will first address the worries of citizens around the world fighting corruption. On one corner, you have those are fighting for the rights of everyone, risking their lives for freedom. On another, there are those who are deep in despair they decide not to help anyone, having watched the news over and over again. On a third corner, you have those who just want to enjoy life to the fullest with minimal regrets. And on the last corner, you have the poor and homeless, who afford anything, let alone social security. With all of these happening, what do you see? Chaos and mayhem in a nutshell, with seemingly no permanent way to fix the problem. My advice? If a few ordinary citizens, not law-enforcement, decided to approach this political problem like detectives instead of fighting for their, not only would the economies be in noticeably better shape, but the amount of deaths could have been reduced to an unknown degree and less people would be mentally ill by then.
Utopias are impossible, a fact that we all know. Why am I saying this? Because I have something that could refute this: Ethnic and Gender equality, something we striven for decades, technically ARE utopias, in a social sense. Even with our differences, it’s nearly impossible for it to happen, as we’re still at each other’s throats for past crimes. The only way this can happen one race apologize to another for a past incident. The chances of reconciliation are slim, only IF both parties are willing to hear each other out and are not consumed by hate. Hate might be a strong word, but in reality, it’s just an enemy at the gates that opposes you openly, not the brush of darkness that Martin Luther King Jr. had described it. In a chaotic, hate-filled world like this, it’s always those are hidden in plain sight.
After a decade of sleuthing, I’ve come to the conclusion that the people responsible for the corruption in our political system, and at large, the communities, and our youth, are the Jews. But many of them have been killed in the past by Nazis in the Holocaust and have faced constant persecution, Right? Actually, that’s exactly the case. Not one citizen, let alone a member of the lower brass of Law Enforcement would believe that a race whose ancestors, victims of a genocide in Nazi Germany, would be complicit in, let alone orchestrate, The Drug Trades, the slave trade, The Great Depression, The corruption of our Youth, the rise of gangs, and most importantly, the corruption of our political system. There are hints lurking around in the United States, something they were counting on. You see very few Jews reported by news anchors of doing a crime (when there’s more than one might think), and if the trial is held, either it has a Jew relative insisting that their Jewish kin is kind when evidence states otherwise, or in case they are declared guilty, the Jew will receive a lighter sentence than someone who isn’t. If a Jew somehow got a harsh sentence, they will commit suicide to escape justice. You see, while everybody else in the lower brass of law government were occupied resolving racism, debt, and other heavy issues, the Jews maintained a positive front of being well-dressed businessmen, all so they could remain under the radar of Law Enforcement’s lower brass for decades, if not centuries. To put it shortly, they’re poisoning the nations from within; The Jews retort with the words “Anti-Semite” simply because I tried to expose them. If it means exposing them for their atrocities, it could be a step for improvement around the world, though to what extent is unclear.
Citizens need to sleuth more instead of inspiring others.
It’s been on my mind for quite some time, yet I’m baffled as to how we humans still have confidence in ourselves when we’ve been played by the Jews, the very victims who were killed at the hands of the Nazis, have screwed the world over. What’s worse is that whoever tries to tell them after discovering this, they’ll get dismissed.
This gaves off a sinister implication the majority are not aware of:
The Jews have a subversive influence in The United States and the rest of the world. The worst part is that most people are being kept ignorant of this through the education system. It’s ambiguous that the Jews themselves have set up the entire event with the Nazis just to get more influence; I don’t have evidence to confirm this, but my hunch is that the Jews have involved themselves and set up past conflicts in human history. In fact, there are of this namely:
What is described above about the education system.
Jews getting the largest amount of lobbying from the US.
They seem to have financially suffer the least out all the racial communities.
Crimes committed by them have been seldomly covered in the media to present the illusion of equality. In addition, the sentences in court tend to less severe towards Jew as opposed to everyone else.
For those who are hopeful of the idea that that there are good Jews around this world, I’ll ask you this: Have they faked their goodness at some point just to obtain resources from you? If this is the case, that is most unfortunate for you and me. Even if those Jews behaved well in public, it’s only to mask a more sinister ulterior motive, whatever that may be. If there is good and evil in everyone, what is stopping the Jews from feigning concern for our fellow humans? An audience? As a certain Italian diplomat once said in a book:
Everyone sees what you appear to be. Few experience what you really are.
Eyes can be deceiving, especially when Jews are involved, as they have been known to commit usury in the past. Worse still is that Donald Trump, the current President of the US, has more Jews voting for him than anyone else. I’m relieved I didn’t participate in the election, as voting for Hillary, like some would prefer, would not make the difference they seek anyway.
I will be blunt: Letting the Jews into our countries was a huge mistake, as they’ll play a big role in the destruction and ruin of the economy of not just the US, but a unknown amount of countries as well. The fact that the Jews, who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, have made fools of the most confident professionals in the world in the 20Th century, and yet humanity still shows faith that they can change despite their past deceptions. Just why are having so patience for something just to prove some lofty philsophy? We’ve given them so many chances, all of which they’ve blown. If this is about believing in Karma or a superstition from India or another country known for it’s philosophy, or some sort of ‘universal backlash’,
In the words of a certain caped crusader: “Criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot.” I’m inclined to add this to the statement “And so are heroes, cowardice notwithstanding.”
Men liked femininity in the 90's.
Its 2019 though and today feminine energy is repulsive to men who associate it with weakness and dependency.
Im 30 but people think Im 18 because I look so young. Ive seen huge changes in society. As much as men claim to hate feminism and want feminine women they dont. They used to. I used to have men eating out of the palm of my hand. The past 8 years men are very hostile and hateful towards me. I’ve been rejected more times than I can count for fat, aggressive and rude women. I’m 5'4'’, 110 pounds, hourglass but my breasts are only a 32b, super feminine voice, love kids and animals, a 7 or 8 overall but I probably couldnt pay a man to date me today.
Please don’t fool yourselves into thinking the world hasn’t changed. It has. Men’s testosterone is significantly lower, they are saturated with feminist propaganda in the media, most of their mothers are wearing the pants in the family and thats what they are used to.
I try really hard to come off more tough and assertive unfortunately my appearance and voice make it hard to pull off.
Im super lonely. In high school girls were jealous of the attention guys gave me but in 2019 we live in a different world where girls like me are the undesirable ones.
An open letter to my friend who thinks transwomen are women
I recently sent you an article by a lesbian who has been documenting homophobia within trans activism. You, my otherwise compassionate, patient and warm friend, replied with “sorry, not interested”. You told me that you didn’t want to read an article which referred to transwomen as ‘male’. You said that transwomen suffer from an “accident at birth” — transwomen are women born in the wrong body.
Seeing my principled friend (with a first-class undergraduate and a masters degree) actively adopt such a bizarre, anti-materialist and anti-scientific position really worries me. How can ‘you’ be ‘born into’ a body? You are a body. The ‘born in the wrong body’ idea goes beyond poststructuralist ideas about gender onto quasi-religious terrain. How can anyone have an innate, pre-experience knowledge of what it means to be the other sex? What does that even entail? Being male or female refers to your reproductive sex. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing for gendered souls.
Still, you talk about ‘gender identity’ —an innate sense of whether someone is male or female. Where is the evidence for this? How do we measure it? What does it mean? Even if we were to accept that a part of your brain could get ‘mixed up’ into an ‘incorrectly’ sexed body, why would ‘gender identity’ override all other physical indicators of whether you are male or female? Why would your subjective sense of self ever be privileged over objective physicality in this way? Transgender is not a medical diagnosis. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, characterised by dissatisfaction with your sexed body and/or assigned gender role. The science behind what causes gender dysphoria is inconclusive, but it is likely caused by different biopsychosocial factors which are unique to each trans person. Gender dysphoria has not been proven to have one ‘cause’ (an ‘accident at birth’ leading to being ‘born in the wrong body’) — there is no normative standard of ‘feeling like a woman’ or ‘feeling like a man’.
Despite this, children who ‘identify’ as the other sex are being given puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. The systematic medicalisation of gender non-conforming children should be an unthinkable practice. Little girls are too young to understand that wanting short hair, having crushes on other girls and enjoying football doesn’t make you a boy trapped in a girls body. Studies suggest that 80% of gender dysphoric children desist and grow up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. One reason why older lesbians are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they recognise that they could easily have been ‘transed’ had they been children today. One reason why mothers are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they know children and their fickleness well.
We are meant to simultaneously believe that gender identity is fixed at around four years old (thus justifying medical intervention in children) but also that trans people don’t all struggle with a lifelong dissatisfaction with their ‘gender’ (thus widening the ‘trans umbrella’ for ‘inclusivity’). How are we to explain ‘genderfluid’, ‘non-binary’ or ‘agender’ identities? If gender has the potential to be fluid, or to change over time, or to not exist, what justification do we have in making permanent changes to a child’s body? Feminists see this practice as being based in gender essentialism?—?a concept you otherwise recognise and reject. What do you make of Jazz Jennings’ book, ‘I am Jazz’, which opens with “for as long as I can remember, my favourite colour has been pink”? She goes on to argue that “I have a girl brain, but a boy body. This is called transgender”. This book is being read in schools in an effort to educate children about what being trans means.
Jazz’ case is interesting, and certainly complexifies issues around sex and gender?—?to what extent can Jazz be considered ‘a man’ if she has never been allowed to go through male puberty? How could it be reasonable to expect Jazz to use male spaces? These are conversations we need to have. But Jazz is a very rare case. ‘Transgender’ is an umbrella term coined in the 1990s to unite a variety of gender non-conforming experiences. What was once ‘transsexual’ is now ‘transgender’. What was once ‘transvestite’ is also ‘transgender’. Both Jazz Jennings and Eddie Izzard have the same claim to the term ‘woman’, because ‘woman’ has been extended to mean ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ (which I guess excludes me, then). Where do you draw the line? Being ‘trans’ is no longer characterised by the material state of having surgically changed your body, but is now characterised by an immaterial, subjective sense of self. Is Danielle Muscato a woman? How about Stonewall activist, Alex Drummond? Again, where do you draw the line? Is it based on ‘passing’? Do women have to look a certain way? What about Jess Bradley, NUS trans spokesperson, who has been suspended from their position for allegedly flashing ‘her’ erect penis in public? Is this a female crime? Are we as a society prepared to accept that it is now possible for a woman to flash her erect penis in public? To extend this further: are we to now accept the possibility of a woman raping another woman with her penis? If nothing else, this is a huge assault on female solidarity and trust. This may be a crude comparison, and I apologise, but consider other animals: would surgically transplanting the feathers of a male peacock onto a female peacock make the latter male? Of course not. Would castrating and shaving the mane of a male lion make him female? Of course not. So why do we accept that surgery has the power to change sex in human beings?
Having said this, we are told by organisations like Stonewall that trans people who do not undergo surgical interventions are still, in all senses, the other sex. This is absurd. What definition of ‘female’ includes the only sex she is not? The female mammal is characterised by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa). No female mammal can fertilize female gametes. No father is a woman. No man is a woman. A woman is an adult human female. Definitions are, necessarily, exclusionary.
Still, in efforts to be more ‘inclusive’, organisations like Bloody Good Period and Cancer Research are reducing women to their biological functions with terms like “menstruators” and “everyone with a cervix”, respectively. Using such passive terms is explicit dehumanisation: other female animals have cervixes and can menstruate. Perhaps the most Orwellian act of ‘inclusivity’ comes from Healthline, who refer to vaginas as “front holes” in sex-education material. This is clearly offensive and ridiculous. You know this. Yet any woman who protests the erasure of ‘woman’ as a meaningful category is smeared as a ‘TERF’. Women who claim ‘women don’t have penises’ are being investigated by the police for hate crime. This is a laughably grotesque form of sexist injustice. As a leftist, surely you can’t defend this.
These new ideas about gender disproportionately affect women who have their own specific spaces, shortlists and movements. These were created not only to promote solidarity and to address historical disadvantages, but also to safeguard against male violence. The absurd climax of gender activism is that male sex offenders are now being housed in female prisons because they ‘identify’ as women. It seems obvious to me not to lock sex offenders in a space with powerless women, but, again, arguing this position gets you smeared with the slur ‘TERF’ (a term I wish you’d stop using). This may be an uncomfortable truth, but around half of UK trans prisoners are incarcerated for sexual crimes (including rape and paedophilia). This is not to argue that all transwomen are sexually violent, merely to point out that this is over double the 19% figure for sexual violence across the prison population as a whole. Why is this? These are questions we need to be free to ask, alongside many other questions: why are gender identity clinics seeing such dramatic increases in teenage girls with mental health issues and autism? Yet events organised by women to discuss these issues are being systematically shut down. Do you defend this assault on women’s democratic right to free speech and assembly?
I know you have many trans friends, some I know and am also very fond of. I understand that you have seen them struggle and that you naturally want to defend them. As with any feminist position, I am not attacking any individual male or denying their struggles. I am trying to objectively point to facts. Someone told me that in taking a gender-critical position, I am viewing trans people as “either mentally ill or immoral” and that this is cruel and unfair. I sympathise with their point, but this isn’t my position. This reminded me of CS Lewis’ argument that Jesus was either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. Like CS Lewis, this activist excluded another possibility: simply being mistaken, which is where I sit. I worry that a lot of young trans people have misread their gender dysphoria as signalling that they are literally the other sex. But “Trans Women Are Women” was meant to be compassion, not truth.
A psychiatric perspective on pedophilia
(it applies to all paraphilias, but since the discourse is mostly focused on MAPs I’m doing it about that)
There is a spreading misunderstanding about paraphilias and specificly about pedophilia. People keep mixing and cofusing concepts, calling mental illness to things that aren’t or the opposite, trying to turn healthy people in mentally ill in some kind of twisted idea of “therapy”. So I just want to make clear the three basic concepts and how therapists work over this.
Also, I have seen tons of antis (bringing this from Tumblr, but it’s the same outside there) saying MAPs they should seek therapy but at the same time they claim that if a MAP doesn’t hate themselves then they is gross and nasty. This shows how little antis know about actual psychiatry and how therapy works, so I would like to help everyone here to understand therapy and achive with that a better understanding of sexuality, mental illness and improving our work towads increasing the number of healthy, happy people and decreasing child abuse in all its ways. So here we go, the three basics concepts:
-POCD: This is NOT pedophilia. The person doesn’t feel attracted to minors, just have intrusive thoughts that are egodystonic and totally unwanted. They know they aren’t going to hurt children but they feel awful about their thoughts and have to do compulsive actions to feel better. This is just as any other OCD, it doesnt matter what are the thoughts about, csa, get an infection, kill your family— The important thing here is treat the OCD (what sadly is really hard), but nothing to do with pedophilia. These people aren’t MAPs and this isn’t their sexuality, this doesn’t have anything to do with pedophilia, but some people mistake it for “pedophilic disorder”, another concept I’ll explain later.
-Pedophilic sexuality (or pedophilic sexual orientation): This is just the sexual attraction towards children (<13 y/o in DSM V terms). It just implies a person who has this specific sexuality. They feel aroused for children, but that doesn’t mean they are going to act over these feelings irl. In this case we consider pedophilia just as any other sexuality. It isn’t a disorder and it doesn’t have treatment. We have a person who is aroused by children but doesn’t feel bad about it and never acts over it in real life. They DON’T have a disorder and they don’t need therapy. Pedophilia is not a mental illnes, but it isn’t a moral degeneration or abomination either. It is just a variation of human sexuality, normal and never a problem itself. In fact, quoting Dr. Fred S. Berlin (associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine):
[—] the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated its intention to remove the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation from the diagnostic manual.2 Removing that term in response to public criticism would be a mistake. Experiencing ongoing sexual attractions to prepubescent children is, in essence, a form of sexual orientation, and acknowledging that reality can help to distinguish the mental makeup that is inherent to Pedophilia, from acts of child sexual abuse.
This is the source, really interesting and informative, I encourage you to read it. Also, the DSM V stated clearly the difference between a pedophilic sexuality and a pedophilic disorder.
-Pedophilic disorder: Here we have a person with a pedophilic sexuality (so, a MAP) BUT who also feels distressed about it (hates themselves, feels anxious, depressed, thinks they are awful and going to hurt children even if it isn’t true—) OR have self-control problems or some distortion that leads them to actual abuse. On DSM terms:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
In first case I mention you need to treat the distress. The goal of therapy isn’t change or lesser the attraction, as some people think. And for sure, it isn’t teaching pedophiles that they are terrible and awful and should hate themselves either. Pedophilia is just a sexuality and sexualities can’t be cured (trying that is conversion therapy and that doesnt work at all). So what you try in therapy is to teach these people that their attractions are ok, treat the anxiety and depression, help them to accept themselves and have a healthy sexuality without harm anyone (like, masturbation with fantasies, consensual sex with adults if they aren’t exclusive MAPs, rp, simulated cp is used in some countries and it has showed to decrease irl csa, so that is used too, etc).
Most of these MAPs are scared of themselves and even when they know they won’t never harm a child they can be afraid to lose control due to a depressive cognitive distortion (that does not indicate a real loss of control, but an obsessive thought over loss of control itself) so you have to work over that too. And about the second group, if they have self-control problems you work in therapy and maybe with some drugs over it. Also, if they have already abused an actual child then therapy focused too in self-control and sometimes lesser their libido, but that is forensic psychiatry field, not just psychiatry and doesn’t have anything to do with non offending maps, the ones I’m focusing here.
So basically, to summarize, people who are MAPs and feel bad about it should and deserve get help. But the help is only going to treat their distress, so the goal is turning a pedophilic disorder in a pedophilic sexuality, never change the attraction, that is always going to be there. We should remember that most child abusers aren’t even MAPs, they dont feel attracted to children (2/3 child abusers are “opportunistic” offenders, so pedophiles aren’t the actual cause of csa), and the ones who are MAPs have different brains that the NOMAPSs (offending MAPs show more lack of self control, empathy, understanding of consequences of their acts, cognitive distorions— While NOMAPs don’t show this, so they dont have the main risk factors for csa).
Tumblr MAP community is really a good thing that therapists should support and encourage. Universalization is a kind of therapy, in fact (this is the awareness that their sexuality is a state shared with other human beings and that it is compatible with mental health and not offending). MAP community doesnt’ say children can consent or that we should abolish AOC or something like that. No, they are just MAPs who are trying to accept themselves and living their lifes in a harmless way. They are working to treat their pedophilic disorder (not their pedophilic sexuality, that, again, can’t be treated) in a support group, what is really good and positive. We can’t forget that MAPs are a high suicide risk group, specially minors, and they deserve support and positivity. People can’t choose their feelings, but they can choose their actions. A MAP doesn’t choose feel attracted to children, but they can choose never harm a child and have a happy life, and that is what therapists and the ones who works in csa prevention try.
If we want to talk about the actual risk factors for csa this aren’t pedophilia. Risk factors for abuse, all kind of abuse, are lack of self-control, low empathy, cognitive distortions, sadism— Sexual attraction is not an actual risk factor because people have morals and another traits that help them to understand what is wrong irl even if they like it in fantasy. So if we want to take really effective actions to prevent csa and protect children we need to work over the actual risk factors and try to understand pedophilia as much as we can.
Hating and attacking MAPs and the MAP community is not going to help anyone, only cause harm. NOMAPs who don’t have these risks factors aren’t going to abuse a children under any circunstance, so we have to help them to understand that too and love themselves, so they can have a plenty, healthy life as we fight all together against the real problem of child abuse. Throwing innocent and mentally ill people under the bus while the actual abusers (again, mostly not pedophiles, just opportunistics) keep harming children without anyone paying attention is not going to help children.
Demonization and misunderstading aren’t going to help children. Understanding, universalization, actual knowledge, acceptation and the right therapies are the things that are going to help us to save children and that we should use as weapons on this, not the visceral, hateful speech without base that antis like to use.
Please, educate yourself in these important issues before get into them or you could be more harmful than helpful.
i’m a Youth Worker, I’m a Paedophile
The idea of a paedophile working with children is, perhaps understandably, pretty controversial. This is the story of how I realised my attraction, learnt to live with it and why I’m going to keep working with kids.
I grew up in a coastal town in the UK with two very loving parents and my two younger siblings. I never had many friends and I was bullied a lot, but every week I went to a youth group. I always felt welcomed there. It gave me a safe environment in which to learn, grow and develop as a person, especially in my self confidence. My time there influenced me as a person more than anything else.
I’d already decided by age 10 that I wanted to give back and volunteer there as an adult. I took up a volunteer role when I turned 14 and it’s the best decision I ever made. Sure it’s a lot of work, sometimes it’s like a full time job and it’s only voluntary, but now I get to help children to grow and develop. I couldn’t ask for more than that.
Shortly after starting in my volunteer position I realised I was a paedophile.
Realisation
My sexuality developed pretty normally at first. I started to notice other boys my age when I was 8. Around 11 years old I figured I was gay. Fortunately at the time public attitudes toward homosexuality were changing pretty quickly and my close family was pretty openly accepting of gay people, so I was able to accept myself relatively easily.
But a year later I started to notice something was up. I was still attracted to boys six?—?or sometimes more?—?years younger than me. Why? It didn’t make any sense to me. Fortunately I was still attracted to enough of my peers that I could ignore it. So that’s what I did for two more years.
It wasn’t until I was 14 that I really started to realise the nature of my sexuality. I’d been getting older, but the boys I was attracted to hadn’t got older with me. In fact by this point all the boys I was attracted to were younger than me. I couldn’t ignore it anymore, I had to start accepting that this was the way I am.
To this day my attractions haven’t changed, I’m still attracted to boys from 4–13. I had no choice in the matter, I was born this way, but I did choose never to act on it and never to harm a child.
Acceptance
I was always a pretty scientifically minded kid. When I realised I was gay I asked myself why I was that way, what it was that made me different. Asking those questions it was pretty obvious to me that my sexuality was an unchosen and unchangeable part of myself. If it can’t be changed and it isn’t hurting anyone then I should just accept it and make the best of my situation.
I went through a very similar thought process when I realised I was a paedophile, so accepting it was pretty easy for me once I stopped trying to deny it. As long as I never hurt anyone what was the problem?
But there was a problem. My only knowledge of paedophilia was based on what society had always told me. Society was constantly telling me that I was doomed to be a monster. I knew I wasn’t a monster; I didn’t want to hurt a child and I knew I never would.
I went online to see if I could talk to others like me. Unfortunately the only other paedophiles I could find were pro-contacts, people that believe children can consent. I knew they were wrong, I’d heard about the damage CSA caused, I didn’t want to be like them and I didn’t want to associate with them, but I was bullied, depressed, suicidal, had no friends and desperately wanted someone to talk to about my attraction. So I talked to them. For many years they tried to push their beliefs onto me, but fortunately I never believed it.
I’d be lying if I said I was never tempted by them though. The idea that it’s okay to act on your attractions and that it’s society that causes the harm can be quite appealing. Especially to a young, depressed, suicidal teenager. Fortunately I always knew that what they were saying was wrong; I couldn’t ignore what I knew to be true: CSA causes devastating lifelong harm.
There was always the fear that someone would find out. What if someone did? I’d be hated by everyone, not even my family would accept me. I’d seen plenty of news stories about what people do to paedophiles. Harass them, beat them, even burn them alive just on suspicion of being a paedophile. If someone found out my life could be in danger. I had to keep this hidden from everyone in my real life. I couldn’t risk losing everything if someone found out. Even now, no one in my real life knows.
One day, early this year, I came across an article about people who called themselves “virtuous paedophiles”. This was a group of people like me that were paedophiles but were against all sexual contact with children. I started doing some reading and after a couple of weeks decided to join VirPed. I’d finally found a community that understood my attractions and shared my views. It was quite a relief; if only I had found them when I was 14.
Turning this into something positive
I’ve accepted my attractions and I know I will never harm a child, but now I’m in a position to help others. I’ve now joined a number of online communities for non-offending and anti-contact Minor Attracted People (MAPs), to help people trying to come to terms with their attractions, to show them that they aren’t monsters.
The hate, death threats and suicide bait non-offending MAPs see every day is staggering and sickening. Young teenagers are seeing those messages, internalising the belief that they are monsters; sometimes the hate pushes them over the edge. They often either kill themselves or get indoctrinated by pro-contacts which can lead to them being abused themselves, abusing kids or viewing child pornography. I want to show them that there is another way, before they get indoctrinated by pro-contacts, or give in to the hate.
Hopefully I can educate a few people along the way too and help to reduce the stigma surrounding paedophilia. When you are constantly told that you are destined to hurt a child it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Contrary to popular belief, helping paedophiles accept themselves is helping keep children safe from abuse. The current stigma just forces paedophiles to hide and prevents them from seeking help if they need it, just increasing the risk they might offend. Demonizing paedophiles might make you feel good, but it’s not helping anyone.
Should I still work with kids?
Most people would say that a paedophile should never be around kids because we are just looking for opportunities to abuse them. That’s completely false. I’ve been working with kids since before I even realised I was a paedophile. I do it because I enjoy it. I have no ulterior motives. I know that my main job is to protect the children in my care and keep them safe; that is what I do. The absolute last thing I want is for a child to be harmed.
Being a paedophile doesn’t mean I lack the normal, protective instincts people have towards children. This is a very common misconception, but if anything, my protective instincts towards children are stronger than most people’s. I find I care more about them and I’m more interested in their well-being.
I love kids, I love working with kids, I’m very good at what I do, I do it because I want what is best for them and I want them to become the best people they can be.
Pedophiles have the exact same ability to develop romantic feelings for children — to fall in love with them — as any other person has for the people they’re attracted to. Of course, a pedophile will have to be in a position where he can have a (completely appropriate) relationship with the child enough to get to know him or her in order for that to happen, and that is not always the case. Many pedophiles choose to avoid being around children for a variety of reasons, ranging from a concern that they will offend — a self-inflicted doubt instilled by the internalization of the prevailing and stigmatizing narrative that all pedophiles are child molesters or ticking time bombs waiting to explode — to a paranoia that others will find out about them if they look a little too long or awkwardly at a child, to simply wanting to avoid the pain of unrequited love, which can be hard to bear. And yet a lot of pedophiles find themselves in a situation where they have fallen in love with a child, and all they can do is suffer it in silence.
Conclusion
In summary, a pedophile’s attraction to children is virtually indistinguishable from a heterosexual man’s attraction to women or a homosexual woman’s attraction to other women. Of course there are variations in the way pedophiles experience their attraction to children, but not in a greater or lesser degree than there are variations in the way others experience their own attractions. For some it is more visceral, more physical/sexual, while for others it is much more emotional, and even paternal in many cases. Pedophiles can certainly obsess over children, but not in any higher degree than any other person can obsess over someone they are attracted to. And of course, pedophiles can behave inappropriately with children, making unsolicited and unwanted sexual advances, but once again, there is no evidence that this would happen at any higher rate among pedophiles than people of other sexual orientations.
Assuming that a pedophile’s attraction to children is inherently perverse or evil is wrong and only contributes to further the stigmatization and vilification of people who, as a group and by definition, are not criminals or desire to harm anyone in any way. Acknowledging that there’s nothing inherently wrong about being attracted to children, given that it’s not something a person was ever given a choice about, in no way excuses anyone from behaving inappropriately with a child. Accepting that there isn’t anything inherent to pedophilia that makes anyone do anything they don’t want to do, or that impairs anyone’s ability to know right from wrong, also doesn’t excuse child sexual abuse.
Has President Trump done anything??? Is he nothing more then a Racist, Sexist Homophobe, and the reincarnation of Hitler? The FACTS say:
1. defeated ISIS
2. unemployment down to a 17-year LOW
3. November saw over 225,000 new jobs
4, Economy growing at 3.3% in third quarter
5. Stock Market continues to grow
6. cutting back on stifling REGULATIONS
7. $1.4 TRILLION Tax overhaul passes in Senate
8. a Constitutionalist appointed to the Supreme Court
9. Jerusalem recognized as the Capital of Israel and the Embassy to be moved
from Tel Aviv to its rightful place
10. re-evaluating unfavorable trade agreements
11. pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement
12. going after the Iran Nuclear Deal
13. curtailing illegal immigration (down 38%)
14. still push the border wall
President Trump is keeping his words during the campaign and like him or loathe him,
he is fulfilling his promises. Can that be said other other Presidents???
Former President Obama kept one promise and that was to “fundamentally transform America”. How did that work out?
1. thought of ISIS as the JV team
2. increased the National debt to $20,000,000,000,000 (TRILLION)
3. anemic Economic growth that never reached above 3%
4. reduced the military
5. did nothing to stop North Korea
6. enabled Iran to become nuclear while allowingterrorist to traffic in Drugs
7. destroy Healthcare
8. possibly spied on the Trump campaign, COLLUSION is a Democrat Party thing
9. appointed highly ineffective political hacks to head the Department of Justice
10. befriended enemies and shunned allies
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and dividing the country and not for the good.
Mary Sue
From self-inserts to imagines, how young women write themselves into the narrative
Illustration by the incredible Maia Kobabe
[This piece was written in conjunction with the most recent episode of the Fansplaining podcast. Follow us on Twitter or Tumblr, and if you’re interested in supporting our work—helping us commission more art and pieces like this—please consider donating to our Patreon.]
1.
Let’s start with the woman in question. She isn’t usually called Mary Sue—she has a less plausible, more fanciful name. Similarly, she has less plausible, more fanciful physical features than your average girl: purple eyes, or really extraordinary hair. You don’t know her, but you know the characters that surround her—she’s a new student at Hogwarts, an important ally you meet in Rivendell, the person on whom Holmes and Watson will rely to crack the case. She is notably smarter, stronger, and/or more beautiful than her peers. She’s going to save the day—and maybe a character you know will fall in love with her, too. She’s a wholly original character, though she might resemble an idealized version of the author. She’s a super-girl, bending beloved stories around her, heroism in a world mostly made up of heroes.
Oh, also: she is the ultimate object of scorn. She is the literal worst. She is embarrassing, self-indulgent trash; she ruins the story with her competence, her desirability, and the way all those characters you love seem to love her. She’s been described an endless number of colorful ways, including (via Fanlore’s meticulous and depressing entry on Mary Sues) the “literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself.” She is everything that’s wrong with fanfiction, with girls writing stories, with fangirls, period.
The most basic definition of “Mary Sue” is an original female character in fanfiction—which is largely about established characters and worlds—who is often close to perfect. Like, too perfect. Very good at her job, very desirable romantically or sexually, and sometimes very emotionally moving when she dies, tragically, and the other characters mourn her. The story usually centers around her, often warping established characterization in the process. She’s self-indulgent, to be sure, but she’s harmless, and framed this way, one might wonder why young girls writing themselves into their favorite worlds is the literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself. If you have to wonder that, though, you might not be familiar with the way the world treats young girls.
“Mary Sue” was coined by Paula Smith in 1970s Star Trek fandom, in a very short story that began, “‘Gee, golly gosh, gloriosky,’ thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. ‘Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet—only 15–1/2 years old.’” Lieutenant Mary Sue, object of affection of Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the men of Star Trek: TOS, was meant to be a parody of what Smith had observed in the fanzines of the day: “The term caught on because she’s very identifiable: Here it is, that same character, and isn’t it a shame because she’s just so tiresome,” she told an interviewer at Transformative Works and Cultures in 2011.
The conversation, conducted 40 years after Lieutenant Mary Sue first stepped onto the bridge, is an interesting one, not least because of the vague sense of disconnect between the literary analysis around the term (why bending a story around your original character might make for bad fiction, or at least not-terribly-enjoyable fiction if you aren’t the author) and the gendered morass that the term has sunk into (or, arguably, where it began).
Mary Sues weren’t born in Trek fandom—one researcher drew parallels between modern self-insert fic and stories that girls wrote about versions of themselves in the nineteenth century—but the term was born in an era of paper zines, a time of limited space for fanfiction, and arguably one with a different relationship between fic writers and their readers. When she first coined the term, Smith says, “In the letter columns, we started seeing the writers react: ‘What’s so wrong with my story? I’m just telling a story that I think is great.’” Even detractors admit Mary Sues are about young girls finding their power and agency in a world of fictional landscapes that rarely afford such journeys to women. After all, the original Mary Sue was the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet.
The days of limited space and resources in fic production are ancient history: there is always room for another story in the internet’s archives, and the general ethos of the broader fanfiction community has long been “don’t like, don’t read.” Many stories are self-indulgent, whether they feature a stand-in for the author or or not. But hatred of Mary Sues is embedded in the culture, self-perpetuating, and has seemingly ramped up since fic came online. In the early digital days, some archives banned Mary Sues outright; to this day, blogs exist solely to call peoples’ original characters Mary Sues, and to deconstruct and mock them accordingly.
Once the seed was planted in cultural discourse, Mary Sue accusations became impossible to stop—the toxicity surrounding the term has spread far beyond fanfiction self-inserts. Not long after it was coined, “Mary Sue” became any original female character in fanfiction; for decades, women have been reporting that they stopped writing original female characters, then female characters altogether, for fear of the “Mary Sue” label. Canonical female characters seen as threats to male/male romances in fic got the term, too—one notable (and incredibly troubling) example is the treatment of Nyota Uhura in fic about the rebooted Star Trek films. And over the years, the term has seeped across pop culture, to the point where “Mary Sue” becomes any female lead, anywhere. Bella Swan, Katniss Everdeen, and Rey from Star Wars are just a few slapped with the label. It’s just so annoying that their respective plots center around them, they must be Mary Sues.
(There are male Mary Sues, in case you’re wondering: “Marty Stu,” “Gary Stu,” and other variations have shown up over the years. People try to counter, even undercut, the inherent misogyny in the Mary Sue conversation by naming too-competent, too-desirable leading men—Captain Kirk, Luke Skywalker, and James Bond are famous examples. There’s an old joke: “What do you call a male Mary Sue?” The answer? “A protagonist.” It’s—not a particularly funny joke.)
But just as fanfiction writers are fighting back against historical scorn towards the practice at large, in recent years fans have been standing up for Mary Sues, too. Critics of the term are working to excise it from discussions around professional works, where it disproportionally targets women writing novels about female characters. In an act of reclamation, one of the most popular female-led geek sites on the internet took the term for its name. And within fan writing communities, people are going to bat for even the most self-indulgent Mary Sues, questioning why we shame young fans for making themselves the heroes of their own stories. But is a long-embedded stigma that easy to shake?
2.
It feels like every other fanfiction writer you talk to has a tale of their own early Mary Sues. Not everyone got called out for them—plenty of people learned to self-censor when they saw others getting shamed. My podcast partner, Flourish, reports that her early original female character was a student who proved vital to a case that Mulder and Scully were investigating. My first fanfic was almost entirely original characters, sketched out on yellow legal pads—I took a minor character from a book series and gave him a diverse team of corporate executives (don’t ask, it’s a weirdly long explanation). But by age 14, when I fell in love with Buffy and learned about online fandom, I was writing stories featuring a banshee who was old friends with Rupert Giles named—Ophelia. (I swear to God, I had no idea about the implications at the time, I just thought “Ophelia” sounded pretty, just as I loved “Cecilia” until Simon & Garfunkel ruined it for me.)
But these days more women are pushing back against the original characters they once felt ashamed of. After all, why shouldn’t young girls write the most spectacular versions of themselves—and why shouldn’t they want to see themselves in a story? In recent years I’ve been especially interested in watching women, people of color, and queer people reclaim the self-insertion narrative from one of indulgence to one of vital representation. In a piece partly about her youthful love of Lord of the Rings, Ash Davis writes,
“Be the change you wish to see,” Gandhi said (sorta). So I wrote my change. I discovered fanfiction and wrote all the damn change. I went into the painfully white fandoms of the things I loved—and wrote black folk into every last one of them. If there were no black people, I made them. If they were tokens, I made them stars. Mary-sued the shit out of everything. It didn’t matter, you were gonna see me!
In another piece I love about reclaiming the Mary Sue (via a medieval mystic, Margery Kempe, who essentially Mary Sued her way into the Bible in her writing, chilling with Mary and romancing Jesus), Ana Wilson writes about placing the female body back into reading—and into writing.
Reading The Book of Margery Kempe alongside fanfiction makes it clear that physical, imaginative reading is still associated with women, still considered embarrassing, and still employed as a form of resistance to mainstream narratives. People, in short, are still using this style of reading to elbow their way into texts from which they are restricted, just as Kempe and other women did with religious texts.
I wish I had my own Mary Sues to claim, but on a personal level, I’m a little more ambivalent. When I talk about good old Ophelia the Banshee, both “female” and an “original character” (and pulling from a very specific strand of symbolic mythology, for that matter), it’s easy to assume that I must have been writing a Mary Sue. But I can’t remember any specific connection between myself and the character, beyond the connections I have with every character I write, from the weary narrator of much of my original fiction who, like me, works at a racetrack, all the way to a certain pansexual immortal time traveling man from the 51st century.
The relationship between a writer and the characters she both reads and writes is a varied and complicated one. Fanfiction adds a layer onto that—the original characters in question aside, most of the people we write about started out as someone else’s characters, at least before the original work went out in the world. In the hands of fans, individually or collectively, a character often becomes someone else in the process. I should clarify: I don’t mean that fans are likely to render them out-of-character. But with the space and care that fanfiction can afford, fan writers often draw a favorite world’s characters as richer, more complicated—more human.
So unless you’re writing self-inserts or original characters, fanfic is partly about getting into the headspace of a character you didn’t create. That, for me anyway, is one of fanfiction’s chief pleasures—I’ve written before that for most fans, fic isn’t about wacky plots, as people outside fandom often assume, but about understanding a character so well that the interesting part comes when you stick them in a wacky plot (sure, “there’s only one hotel room left” counts as wacky), apply pressure, and see how they react.
For me, in my post-Ophelia Banshee days, inhabiting other characters as I write fanfiction has been vitally important. I read and write fic for a simultaneous distance and closeness with these characters—I allow them into my head, but I’m not looking to project myself back onto them. Part of this is privilege: whiteness, and I’m especially thinking of the un-interrogated whiteness of my adolescence, often lets white people assume a “default” position. A disproportionate number of the characters on our pages and screens are white, and from that lens shared whiteness with characters feels less like commonality and more like a lack of difference. Part of it is the opposite of privilege: the minefield of my struggles with gender and sexuality—almost definitely a subject for a totally separate essay—have left me perpetually out of step with many characters I encounter on pages and screens. When I think about myself in relation to a story, I slip away—a bit ironic, I suppose, for someone fascinated by girls who write themselves into stories. Or maybe that’s the whole point.
But part of it’s not just me: I hesitate to get too reductive on the links between shaming girls out of their own stories and the kinds of things that dominate many corners of the fanfiction world, but one could draw a line from the embarrassment of the Mary Sue to the positioning of certain types of characters in fandom as “default.” In the vast landscape of popular media, at least in the Anglo-American context, we’re implicitly taught to view the white male character as neutral, blank, infinitely relatable. While media certainly can shoulder some blame, fans should be held responsible, too, and the way young fans are encouraged, gently or mockingly, to step out of their own perspectives, away from their own backgrounds, and into the perspective of certain types of characters is one of the lasting legacies of the Mary Sue construction.
3.
When we consider the Mary Sue and her position in fandom at large, those of us outside the real person fic space often tend to overlook the fact that as long as celebrity fandom has existed, fannish communities have been built on self-insert fic with female protagonists. For many readers, this kind of story is sought after, not an object of scorn. The self-inserts that populate a lot of boy band RPF, for example, are perspective characters that, just like Mary Sues, allow young women to gain narrative control of their relationships with the objects of their affection.
Perspective is important in fanfic. It’s obviously also important in all other fiction, ever, but fic can sometimes feel particularly preoccupied with it. After all, perspective shift is one of the bedrocks of the practice; fans love nudging the spotlight off a canonical protagonist. RPF is an interesting space to examine perspective, and the way the “default” (white, male) gaze gets shattered and refashioned. There’s the complicated sort of circular gaze of stories from the celebrity’s point of view, where the reader watches the celebrity watching a character who’s often a stand-in for the reader. And while second-person fic feels more prevalent in fanfiction at large than it does in the published fiction world, it often feels ubiquitous in RPF spaces. Lumped under a second-person umbrella stories that work very differently in form and function, from fleshed-out second person narrators to “x Reader” stories that eschew identifying details to “imagines,” short prompts that exist in a murky space between fiction and daydream fodder.
When you place those fleshed-out narrators side-by-side with Mary Sues, it’s an interesting study in contrasts: where a Mary Sue is too-perfect, the self-insert narrator is often fairly ordinary, beaten down in some way, frustrated with her situation, not quite aware of her own attractiveness or agency. (Part of the pleasure of the narrative arc is the realization, and reclamation of that agency.) These characters and this type of fic is wildly popular on Wattpad, so much so that the platform commissioned an entire anthology of second-person RPF entitled IMAGINES, released last year with a shiny silver mirror on its cover alongside the words “Celebrity encounters starring YOU.”
The imagines of the anthology are, a little confusingly, not quite the same thing as “imagines,” the prompts that are increasingly popular on Tumblr and Wattpad. The anthology’s stories, about chance encounters with celebrities, are narrated by women of various ages and backgrounds with clear characterization and perspective. They’re not all romantic: in one story, a mother embarrasses her teenage daughter when she brings home Nicholas Hoult for dinner, the “you” full of maternal affection for the actor; in another, “you” are on the run with Kim Kardashian, a freedom fighter in an America where the government has outlawed selfies (Kim is on the run because she keeps taking them, obviously). The “yous” are unremarkable, but there’s a bit of knowing space between the reader and the narrator: we can tell you’re selling yourself short, and we’re waiting for you to realize it.
Actual imagines, in contrast, leave you to do most of the work of constructing a protagonist. They are short, sometimes a single sentence: “Imagine: You and Ed take a camping trip to get away from the media,” reads one on a popular Tumblr devoted to imagines, accompanied by a gif of Ed Sheeran looking sort of bashful. How you met, the state of your relationship, literally everything about “you” is up in the air—whether the reader even feels compelled to fill those gaps is a matter of preference. The “you” in an imagine isn’t necessarily average-looking or untalented—the same blog offers you a gif of Sebastian Stan looking charmed accompanied by, “Imagine: When Sebastian first meets you he is speechless and stunned by your beauty.” Imagines are interesting often not because of what they contain, but what they lack—the wide-open spaces they leave, utterly customizable, whether you spin a single-sentence prompt into a 60,000-word story or just imagine you and Ed Sheeran sitting in a tent. As a self-insert narrator, you are as present or as absent as you want.
The protagonists of “x Reader” stories are similarly blank: often called “y/n,” short for “your name,” these stories are the most literal expression of “self-insert” imaginable, since the pairing is you, the reader, and the celebrity of the title. These stories vary, but sometimes they tread so lightly in an attempt to leave “y/n” as neutral as possible that they wind up feeling a bit like Mad Libs, instructing you to fill in, say, your favorite book rather than just name one the narrator might like. Sometimes x Reader stories follow a full narrative arc; other times they feel like a collected set of imagines. When I got sucked in researching, I wound up in a story where in each chapter, you successively date, then marry, each of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
The prevalence and growing popularity of images and x Reader stories amongst younger fans is a fascinating shift when I think of the self-inserts of previous generations. If a Mary Sue is a projection, a young woman’s ideal self on the page, then an imagine is more likely to be a reflection: exactly who you are, at the center of the story. Mary Sues are aspirational, but in a way, so are these other self-insert forms: they construct worlds in which your fictional self, going about your incredibly ordinary life, is just as important as Lieutenant Mary Sue. The story still bends around you.
The overwhelming popularity of self-inserts on Wattpad, a fanfiction hub with a younger demographic than other archives, leaves me both curious and hopeful about young girls right now, writing themselves into stories. I know that reader x boy-band-star-of-the-moment isn’t exactly a new construction; while I was working on my weird diverse corporate team and Flourish was helping the FBI catch aliens, my contemporaries were writing themselves into Hanson’s green room and *NSYNC’s tour bus, stories they’d later disavow (and, haltingly, reclaim).
Today’s social media is restructuring our conceptions of personal identity—we increasingly center ourselves in our own narratives. Don’t worry, I’m not about to go on some “narcissistic millennial” rant. Quite the opposite: it’s heartening to see young women, young queer people, young people of color, center themselves in narratives when our screens and pages are still lacking. In the fanfiction world, just like in the rest of the world, we still hold marginalized characters, original or otherwise, to impossible standards. But perhaps our embrace of Mary Sues—even if they’re the most achingly perfect young woman to ever command a ship in the Fleet—will help change things for the better.
(Note: Yet another SJW hate piece on Daniel Bell's article. Posting just the best bits as it's all just some weird rant.)
4 Reasons Why Dr. Bell’s Chinese Card is Officially #Cancelled
Brief summary: Dr. Bell, a white man of Canadian origin who has been living in China for over 20 years, believes that he should be included in the general consensus of who is Chinese because of how well he has assimilated into Chinese culture (whatever he thinks that is), citing China’s multiethnicity, some hypothetical ABC chick for some reason, and his smashing conference attire. The key argument, says Dr. Bell, is that Chinese identity should be based on a test of cultural compatibility—and whoever passes the test should be awarded the Chinese card, based on merit.
I’m going to level with you: I absolutely resent that this piece exists, and it isn’t just because I resent when white Western folks try to lay claim to aspects of Asian identity (more on that later). It’s also because that, in an attempt to sound authoritative on Chinese culture to a white audience, Dr. Bell manages to say some pretty offensive, inaccurate, and minimizing things about China and Chinese people.
Never mind the fact that Dr. Bell’s arguments happen to depend on a distinctly Americentric interpretation of identity, or that comparing the way identity is treated in a settler-colonial state is by no means an appropriate way to measure how identity is thought about elsewhere. I can’t even begin to explain the incompatibility of that analogy (partly because I can’t even begin to explain, I literally can’t). But there’s plenty else to find objectionable in Dr. Bell’s application for his Chinese card. For example—
.
.
.
Believe it or not, the push towards China’s—and Chinese people’s—Westernization is due fundamentally to Western pressure. It manifests in many forms, from the skin whitening products that line Chinese beauty shop shelves to the fact that nearly nobody in China has a traditional Chinese wedding anymore, instead opting for the Western white gown and tuxedo. But is the Chinese émigré any less Chinese because they take on a Western name to avoid the constant awkwardness and embarrassment of Western people failing (and often, not even trying) to pronounce their Chinese name? Chinese Westernization is not a scorning of tradition, it is a survival tactic. And the last thing you should be doing as a white person who, still, directly benefits from the colonization of non-white nations, is to chastise Chinese people for not trying as hard as you.
Whether or not you think this is a tragedy or “Chinese people abandoning their roots” does not change the fact that these changes are, fundamentally, in service of you and people like you. So long as Westernization is portrayed as synonymous to strength and modernity, the Chinese will gravitate towards Western aesthetic and traditions. And it is quite perverted for a person of Western origin to even implicitly chastise non-Western people for adhering to Western standards of business attire, when it was Western people who imposed those standards to begin with. Get it?
.
.
.
Alright guys, pack it up, because historical context is out of style now! Let’s fixate on the fact that the Boxer Rebellion involved mean ol’ Chinese folk trying to kick out the nice whites and conveniently omit every other piece of this narrative for some reason!
I—okay. Y’all, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the British and allied European forces literally exported opium to China en masse with the intent of turning an entire region of Chinese people into fucking heroin addicts so that they could negotiate more favorable foreign policy and trading terms with a state full of heroin addicts that they created. In other words, the British turned all of China into the national equivalent of crack whores for their own benefit. And then, when Chinese officials registered some concern about the alarming rate at which addiction was climbing in their country, the European allied forces invaded China and, among other things, burnt down a shit ton of significant and prized Chinese landmarks, including large portions of the emperor’s summer palace in Peking (present-day Beijing) in what are now known as the Opium Wars. So maybe it’s not hard to imagine that, having to pick up the pieces from that mess, having had their shit all fucked up by a group of folks who wanted to treat them like literal crack whores, Chinese people were a little more than understandably upset at the Western and Christian presence in China.
.
.
.
But to me the greatest issue with Dr. Bell’s piece is that he doesn’t seem to understand what it means to be a perpetual foreigner, because he isn’t one. Yes, I am sure that sounds insensitive, but listen—there is a very easy remedy for Dr. Bell’s supposed “perpetual” foreigner status: Go back to Canada.
Certainly, returning to a country after being gone for two decades will require some readjustment. But at the end of the day, and no matter how long he’s been gone or where he’s been, Dr. Bell’s whiteness ensures that he will always be perceived as Canadian first. Whatever feelings he may personally harbor about being in China for twenty years will not change the fact that Canadians will see him on the street and think “Canadian”, not other.
This is not an option, by and large, that is available for members of the Chinese diaspora. Let’s talk, for instance, about the hypothetical Chinese-American girl Dr. Bell concocts for the purposes of his piece—a third-generation immigrant who doesn’t speak any Chinese and doesn’t identify as such. Never mind that her cultural disconnect from China will never truly make her American, that she’ll always be the subject of orientalism no matter how perfect her English is. Can she go back? After all, she is Asian; racially, she is Chinese, even if she hypothetically rejects the label (which goes into a whole different can of white supremacist worms that we can discuss later). But could she go back to China and seamlessly blend back in with the population again? Could she, this hypothetical ABC, return to place where she would not be seen as “other?” The answer, here, is no. The tricky part about a country whose view of the “other” is so all-encompassing is that even the Chinese diaspora qualifies. This ABC girl probably isn’t up to date on the fashions, either, so her makeup and clothes would give her away. And even if she was, she would out herself simply by opening her mouth. And, since many ABC’s cultural upbringing is often highly region-specific, she would probably stick out if she was dropped in the wrong part of China, as well.
(PS: Why doesn’t this ABC girl speak Chinese? I know she’s purely hypothetical and exists only to serve your own purposes, but it’s probably because someone in her family decided not to teach their children Chinese because they knew that speaking English with an accent would hinder their attempts to integrate into American society.)
Even my father, the man who was born and raised in China, could not go back either. In the forty years since he left, China has left him behind. His aesthetic is undeniably the American dad aesthetic and, as he often says to me, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”—so he probably wouldn’t be able to give up his socks-with-Tevas and “Manhattan Beach 10k Finisher” #looks even if he wanted to, even though they betray him immediately as foreign. My dad isn’t up to date on the latest in Chinese academia or savvy of the latest trends in Chinese technology. Even his Beijing accent sounds out of place from years of desaturation in California. It would take years for him to even begin to re-assimilate and again, if he went anywhere but Beijing, he wouldn’t even have a chance.
I suppose there are two lines of disconnect between Dr. Bell and I—you lack the racial aspect of Chinese identity, while I lack the cultural. But the two are not interchangeable. When Chinese people emigrate from the motherland, they also burn a bridge. They can never really come back in the same way. Dr. Bell, on the other hand, will always have his unequivocal Canadian identity to come home to.
This is what it means to be a “perpetual foreigner”—not just that you are othered in your adopted country, but that you’re othered in the one you came from as well. You don’t want to be here. It’s a painful and confusing place to be. For many Chinese diaspora, Chinese identity is a tenuous thread that we cling to which reminds us that we are more complex than the boxes that whiteness insists we occupy. It is how we connect to our ancestors and family. It is how we survive erasure in a white-dominated society. And it’s not the same thing as a white expatriate wishing to enjoy the full scope of his white privilege in a borrowed country.
There’s a popular liberal myth that claims that individual cops can be good. This claim is rooted in white supremacist mythology that suggests racism is an individual act committed by anybody. First and foremost, policing is not a question of individualism. It is not as if a random individual gets a gun, a badge, a police car, and a blue uniform. The police are a highly organized institution with systemic power. In order to understand any institution, it is important you start with the history of that institution, the institution of modern day policing evolved from the slave patrol system.
Enslaved Black bodies were the foundation of the american economy, as enslaved Africans were more valuable than america’s industrial capital combined. Many Black people attempted and successfully ran away from slave masters, which made the white ruling class lose money. This led to the creation of the police. Their motto was to serve and protect, not citizens, but the institution of slavery. This fueled the american settler colonial empire, and subsequently boosted the capitalist economy.
While the role of police/policing during chattel slavery was to protect the “property” of white slave-owning land stealers, the system evolved. Shortly after the “abolishment” of chattel slavery, the 13th amendment institutionalized slavery through the federal government. The police transformed into the gatekeepers of the prison slavery industry. A system that enslaves Black men at a higher amount than chattel slavery, and advocates for the criminalization of Black women and girls. The more bodies in prison the more potential for exploited labor and disenfranchisement.
The police also serve as a neo-colonial paramilitary force that protects and promotes the white capitalists interests. A prime example of this neo-colonial force was at Standing Rock. The u.s. government authorized police to forcibly remove indigenous people from their land. All of this violence was done in the name of an oil pipeline that donald trump is invested in.
To suggest that there are good cops is like saying there’s good slave patrols or good colonizers. It acts as if policing is an individual act that isn’t a product of racial capitalism. A cop might have “good intentions”, but these good intentions don’t change the fact that they are a part of a system that is rooted in anti-Blackness. These “good intentions” don’t change the fact that the system they work for criminalizes the whole Black community. I am anti-police not just anti-police brutality. If you are only “anti-police brutality” you are simply saying that you think slave patrols are good just as long as the slave patrols doesn’t beat anybody.
The police must be abolished if police brutality is to end. There’s no such thing as reforming a system of policing that was founded on slave-catching. Every branch of the u.s government supports the institution of police which is why the entire system must be removed. Now, some might argue that abolishing the police will create more “crime”. The entire idea of crime is a racialized profit scheme (but that’s another article). I want you to imagine a world in which a $100 billion every year isn’t spent on the police. $100 billion dollars could fund the college education of every “american”.
$100 billion dollars could feed every person in this country. $100 billion dollars could make sure everyone has the right to clean water. $100 billion dollars could make sure that every person had adequate health care. We must abolish capitalism, as capitalism places human life in cell blocks and uses slave labor to expand the american colonial project.
When it comes to 9/11, there are two groups of people: those who don’t know exactly what happened, and those who orchestrated it.
In Defense of Punching Cops
Why the original slave catchers can catch these hands
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Black Lives Matter or any affiliations thereof.
I have a friend who punched a cop?—?or as he describes it, he “two-pieced his white ass and laid him out on the street.” This is doubly impressive because my friend is a queer Black man and he lived to tell about it.As legend has it, a white cop was witnessed aggressively harassing Black school children for exhibiting Black joy (aka running), and my friend (we’ll call him “Pigslayer”), was so overcome with emotion that he confronted the cop and the situation escalated from there. Before Pigslayer knew what came over him, he knocked the cop on his ass and made his escape by hopping on a conveniently departing bus nearby. Pigslayer watched from the moving window as the officer got to his feet and tried to regain his composure. Assuming the bus would get pulled over, my friend gave his belongings to a random passenger who volunteered to keep them safe upon his arrest.But an arrest never happened.The cop?—?presumably too embarrassed to report he’d just gotten his ass whooped by an angry faggot with frosted tips?—?never so much as called in the incident. Folks on the bus thanked Pigslayer for intervening to protect the Black youth, and now my friend re-tells the story whenever he has three or more drinks in his system. And no matter how many times he tells the story I think it’s going to end with his funeral, because 9 times out of 10 that’s exactly what would have happened. And 10 times out of 10 the cop would have gotten away with it. It’s no secret that in the United States, police have a license to kill.
In the United States, police have a license to kill.
It’s for this reason that I own a hoodie that reads, “Police Murder People.” I don’t wear it ironically; I wear it because (spoiler alert) police have a habit of murdering people. Call me antagonistic, but I think that warrants some acknowledgement.
image
“Police murder people.” No lies detected.Perhaps more interesting, however, is the fact that many Americans are under the belief that police are murdering us for our own good. Sometimes we eagerly call them to our houses so they can murder us in front of our families. Just two weeks ago, police killed a pregnant Black woman named Charleena Lyles, who had called to report a burglary at her home. The fact her death barely interrupted the news cycle should scare the shit out of all of us. Instead, most Americans remain unfazed. I’m not one to give cops credit, but that’s an impressive public relations feat.Convincing Americans that killer cops are performing a public service is the fascist equivalent of selling road kill as “free-range organic.” Bravo. I might even respect the deception if it didn’t put a huge target on my back?—?and the backs of all marginalized folks. In fact, the prevailing message that law enforcement has a right to brutalize us is so normalized that most of us don’t even find it odd. And why would we?This past spring, I watched a new TV show in which cops were given high-tech military grade weaponry to patrol and terrorize low income minority communities. In a rational world, we’d recognize this as blatant fascist propaganda. But in 2017 America, it’s just the third most racist show on Hulu Plus. It’s part of an ongoing PR campaign which allows police to assault everybody from children to old ladies with relative impunity. That sentiment is frightening enough in its own right, but this PR stunt has an added side effect I hadn’t considered until recently: The higher we place law enforcement on a seemingly immovable social pedestal, the more blasphemous statements like, “cops murder people,” become?—?even when undeniably true.This explains why I’m frequently referred to as a fanatic and an extremist in the comment sections of my articles and social media posts. I’ve even internalized this, and (like many queer Black organizers) have started referring to myself as a radical. I wear it as a badge of honor, but I don’t know if I’m prepared to live in a world where single moms who blog and actually pay for Hulu Plus are considered radical. If I’m radical, what does that make Pigslayer? If I’m an extremist, what does that make of the folks behind this violent NRA ad?
Aka: “In Defense of Shooting Blacks, Gays, Muslims, and the Poor”Inevitably, as the status quo shifts to the far right, it drags all of us along with it. That’s why Democrats today are about as liberal as stormtroopers®, and Pride festivals are patrolled by cops driving rainbow colored paddy wagons. Even the “liberal media” recently praised mass-murderer-turned-oil-painter George W. Bush for criticizing Donald Trump’s overt racism. This is the same guy who called for a constitutional amendment permanently banning gay marriage. Why is he suddenly doing light-hearted guest spots on Ellen? How did George “Mission Accomplished” Bush become the golden boy of the Huffington fucking Post? It’s likely for the same reason I’m now being lumped in with radical freedom fighters like Assata Shakur and Korryn Gaines, even though I thought a Molotov cocktail was a mixed drink until I was 28.One of the best examples of this glaring political shift happened back in January, when actual neo-Nazi, Richard Spencer, was punched in the face. Twice. It’s not the punches that highlighted the shift, but the fact they caused a national discussion on the morality of punching Nazis. I shit you not.
Being civil in the face of oppression is to be a spectator?—?or, more accurately, a perpetrator.
There was a time when punching Nazis was the only thing all Americans agreed upon?—?even before most Americans were cool with Black folks drinking from public water fountains. We set aside our differences when it came to understanding that Nazis ought to have their bells rung on sight. Here’s a short list of fictional characters who have physically assaulted Nazis over the years: Wonder Woman, Deadpool, Captain America, Rafael from the Ninja Turtles, Indiana Jones, Superman, and Captain Planet. Even Daffy Duck gave Hitler a concussion with a croquet mallet[/url], and we all agreed it was fine because Nazis obviously deserve concussions. Or at least they used to. Today, it’s up for debate.
image
Duck the police.
As Isaac Hayes¹ once said, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” That seems to be true for everything except American liberalism, which has largely decided that acts of resistance should not extend beyond clever memes and stern words of admonishment. Being civil in the face of oppression is to be a spectator?—?or, more accurately, a perpetrator. During the course of my life, I’ve seen the far right crank the dial up to 10, while the left has tried to politely reason with them over the deafening noise. They want to be remembered as the voice of reason, not the voice of revolution. In essence, liberals are the fuckboys of America?—?screenshotting their seemingly righteous indignation so they can gaslight us later and stake claim to the moral high ground.Boy, bye.From where I’m sitting, there are only two possible solutions for re-calibrating the political spectrum to redefine leftist radicalism and far right conservatism. We can continue to slowly build grassroots movements and increase pressure on the powers that be to abandon their regressive and oppressive regimes—. or we can punch cops.I think both of these solutions have merit, but cop punching might solve our problem faster. For starters, we don’t need a lot of people punching cops. We just need enough so that Fox and Friends will think twice before labeling people like me extremists. The goal is to burst the bubbles of those who view my boring ass opinions and lifestyle as “extreme” in any way. Nothing puts that in perspective faster than Officer O’Mally getting laid out in front of 1 Police Plaza.I know that if my child one day becomes a victim of police abuse and harassment (and statistically they will), I’d want somebody to intervene and defend them. But I also know that aside from myself and Pigslayer, not many people would. I find that realization frightening. Does that make me an unhinged extremist, or a mother concerned about a legitimate threat to my child and a violation of my reproductive rights?As a bonus, decking cops would make decking Nazis seem tame by comparison, and essentially end that debate once and for all. If history is any guide, we know how this plays out anyway. It ALWAYS comes down to the people rebelling and punching cops. It’s only a question of when. The new normal is not sustainable. I’ve been to the mountain top, and trust me; it’s covered in knuckle sandwiches with extra bacon.Punching cops would be the perfect plan, if it weren’t for one glaring reality: You’ll probably end up getting murdered. Which sounds terrible, until you come to grips with the fact that cops are already murdering us. Maybe if more people knew, my idea wouldn’t sound so radical. Maybe I should stock up on more hoodies.________________
Why not just admit and face the fact that multiculturalism, equality, tolerance, and anti-racism are all smoke screens concocted to demoralize the West during the Cold War and are continued because the KGB was so successful at getting its agents into power positions in academia. Face it, either you abandon this idiocy now or learn to wear a burka and make plans for a clitoridectomy because all you are accomplishing is preparing the battle space for the Jihad. Enjoy knowing that you are committing your descendants’ suicide for them. Socialism and Islam are always evil all the time and in all ways, and you are doing their work for them. If you can hate yourself for being a White American why not hate yourself for being a Communist/Islamist dupe. It’s so much more reasonable.
Dr. David Manning, a black professor and minister, says that blacks are the most racist people on the planet, and will never let go of slavery.
White liberals /Democrats propagated the victim mentality in American blacks through the Civil Rights Act in the 60’s, with LBJ seeking to make blacks dependent, permanent voters for the Democratic Party by the creation of a welfare state which would diminish any need for incentive. The only condition of receiving these government handouts was that there could be no adult male in the household. The more children produced, the more welfare was justified.
Consequently the black family was destroyed and replaced with a failed matriarchy society in which respect for traditional values was discarded, the value of education eliminated, employment of black men plummeted , and illegitimate births went from 25% in 1955 to 70+% today.
Aimless male youths devolved to impregnating teen single mothers in government subsidized ghettos while engaging in crime on the streets. A “prison pipeline” was created which ensured a revolving door of incarceration, release, crime, and re-incarceration, while single mothers had a revolving bedroom door, deteriorated to loud, confrontational and violent problems in public, and lost any semblance of caring for their children, who became tools for acquiring welfare and left to wander the streets with no discipline or respect for anyone.
Yet blacks cannot and will not change, just as Dr. Manning says. They are addicted to victim status and government dependence, and cannot see the source of their problem is the Democratic Party, which perpetrates their refusal to move past slavery, as well as never accepting responsibility for their own actions.
There are numerous black hate groups, such as BLM, The New Black Panther Party, numerous on-campus black groups whose only agenda is anger and bitterness against white society, and liberal, leftist organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, the Rainbow Coalition, The Nation of Islam, The Congressional Black Caucus, and many others, which seek to demonize any group that supports white causes. In fact most liberal colleges won’t allow a white organization of students to exist, while encouraging militant MSA (Muslim Students Association) which is linked to CAIR and the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as multiple black student groups.
This is nothing more or less than bigotry and racism, plain and simple. So save your complaining about white groups?—?we have every right to exist as long as there are anti-white groups blaming whites for every thing that doesn’t please you.
[Comment on thread by female party member, who supports her female local Labour MP, recounts being bullied at local Labour Party meeting by male opponents of male party leader]
So you call your MP by its first name but not the party leader. Is it worth us having first names with stinking, looney left feminazi hypocrites like you? And yes, we DO know what fierce means, and more importantly what it doesn’t. Just because you’re a bad tempered, two faced feminist pig doesn’t mean you’re fierce, it just means you’re a bad tempered, two faced feminist pig no matter how pompous and self righteous you are.
Allen Frances confessed how there is no definition of a mental disorder, and how it’s bullshit, but that’s not entirely true. There is a definition?—?that mental illness is a position in a pecking order. And pecking orders are not bullshit, but are hard-wired into the social organisation of all mammals.
Our brains make extrapolation about its social status based on feedback from the group, and expands our shrinks the self through adjusting serotonin levels. Esteem. This self-mirroring behavior facilitates the spread of memes within cultures, and makes it possible to spread information fast.
The guise of psychological authority is just a way to gain an advantage in the competition for authority. It’s a strategy to remain at the top of the hierarchy, to secure one’s position in the pecking order, while making sure those at the bottom continue to take all the punches. It’s politics. It’s cheating.
Diagnoses are the contemporary equivalent of racial biology. It’s used to legitimize ideas that would otherwise have been contested, provides the authority necessary for statism to emerge, and has no real science or empirical evidence to back it up.
100 years ago, hysteria was used to legitimize enslavement of females. 50 years ago, homosexuality was pathologized to ostrasize and dis-empower gays. 20 years ago, ADHD and bipolarity and schizophrenia and autism was used to legitimize wage slavery or the enslavement of children into a coercive education system. These superstitions are merely a strategy to legitimize coercion and to gain an advantage in the competition for power. And, 100 years ago, people accepted hysteria as a story. 50 years ago, people accepted the story that homosexuality was a mental illness. 20 years ago, people accepted the story that their children suffered from ADHD or autism, or that their friends were schizophrenic and lived in an alternate reality. And so on.
These diagnoses are not science, they are local tradition, a form of superstition and a pre-requisite for statism. Without them there could be no statism?—?the pecking order would collapse?—?which is why we need to stand up for the fact that they are myths.
Question One: Do doctors receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Two: Does the government receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Three: Do researchers and educators receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Those are important questions, wouldn’t you say? Do you know the answer? Just be honest with yourself.
If you’re a vaccine advocate and you don’t have a confident answer to all three of those questions, that’s a bit reckless.
Anyone who thinks the medical establishment wouldn’t [almost] universally recommend something that’s [almost] totally unnecessary hasn’t looked into cholesterol and statin drugs or the [non] link between saturated fat and heart disease.*
*The government has peddled this same myth for decades. The entire food pyramid is a giant manipulation designed to reward Big Agriculture. And “manipulation” is not a shock-term. If you’ve never heard of Luise Light, then you’re grossly misinformed about what the federal government is capable of when it comes to pulling wool over the eyes of the American people.
Anyone who thinks the research establishment won’t come to specific, pre-determined conclusions due to collusion between governments and industry probably doesn’t know that 97–99% of medical journal advertising profits come from pharmaceutical companies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
